BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION AMONG COLLEGE-AGED FEMALES AN INTERVENTION STUDY A Thesis by KELSEY J. TOOMEY Submitted to the Graduate School Appalachian State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS December 2011 Department of Psychology
73
Embed
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION AMONG COLLEGE-AGED FEMALESlibres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Toomey, Kelsey_2011_Thesis.pdf · BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION AMONG COLLEGE-AGED FEMALES AN INTERVENTION STUDY
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION AMONG COLLEGE-AGED FEMALES
AN INTERVENTION STUDY
A Thesis
by
KELSEY J. TOOMEY
Submitted to the Graduate School
Appalachian State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
MASTER OF ARTS
December 2011
Department of Psychology
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION AMONG COLLEGE-AGED FEMALES:
AN INTERVENTION STUDY
A Thesis
by
KELSEY J. TOOMEY
December 2011
APPROVED BY:
_______________________________________
Courtney A. Rocheleau
Chair, Thesis Committee
_______________________________________
Denise M. Martz
Member, Thesis Committee
_______________________________________
Lisa A. Curtin
Member, Thesis Committee
_______________________________________
Todd K. Hartman
Member, Thesis Committee
_______________________________________
James C. Denniston
Chair, Department of Psychology
_______________________________________
Edelma D. Huntley
Dean, Research and Graduate Studies
Copyright by Kelsey J. Toomey 2011
All Rights Reserved
Permission is hereby granted to the Appalachian State University Belk Library and to the
Department of Psychology to display and provide access to this thesis for appropriate
academic and research purposes.
FOREWORD
This thesis is written in accordance with the style of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th
Edition) as required by the Department of Psychology at
Appalachian State University
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my thesis chair, Courtney Rocheleau, for her continued patience and
guidance throughout this thesis process. Additional thanks are warranted to my thesis
committee, Dr. Martz, Dr. Curtin, and Dr. Hartman, as well as the graduate and
undergraduate research assistants serving in the lab namely, Rafaella Sale, Rebecca Daniel,
Erin Dobbins, Bridgette Hills, and Brook Benadom. Lastly, I would like to thank my cohort
for their endless support and encouragement throughout this process.
Dedication
I wish to dedicate this thesis to my parents, Regina and Charlie Short, and my brother, Ryan
Toomey. Their enduring support and encouragement has made my graduate school
experience possible.
Running head: BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 1
Breast Self-Examination Among College-Aged Females:
An Intervention Study
Kelsey J. Toomey
Appalachian State University
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 2
Abstract
Although 95% of women report awareness of recommendations to perform monthly
breast self-examinations (BSEs), only about 17-36% of women comply with this
recommendation. Many intervention studies aim to increase BSE behavior in women by
providing them with information about breast cancer, the importance of BSEs, and the proper
way to conduct BSEs, but few seek to address the underlying cognitive and emotional
reasons why women fail to engage in this healthy behavior. This study investigated whether
combining Motivational Interviewing (MI) and a Health Belief Model based (HBM)
intervention would promote intentions to engage in BSE behaviors. Thirty-three females
were randomly assigned to an HBM based psychoeducational intervention using MI (PE/MI;
n = 17) or a no-treatment control group (n = 16). Together, the HBM constructs predicted
intentions to engage in BSE, F(6, 24) = 3.07, p = .03. The PE/MI participants reported
significantly greater self-efficacy, F(1, 27) = 7.31, p = .01, awareness of BSE cues, F(1, 30)
= 12.81, p = .001, and intentions to conduct monthly BSEs, F(1, 30) = 15.48, d = 1.38, p <
.001, at post-test than control participants. The groups did not differ on other HBM
constructs (ps > .11). MI appears to be a promising strategy for promoting BSE.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 3
Breast Self-Examination Among College-Aged Females:
An Intervention Study
Breast cancer is currently one of the most frequent causes of mortality among women
in the United States. The National Cancer Institute estimates that, based on current rates, one
in eight women born today will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some time in her life
(American Cancer Society, 2009). This is a dramatic increase since 1977, when the rate was
one in fourteen women (George, 2000). In 2010, approximately 207,000 women were
diagnosed with breast cancer and about 39,840 women died from this disease (American
Cancer Society, 2010).
Although curative treatment for breast cancer is increasingly successful, early
detection and treatment are critical in reducing mortality rates among women (American
family history of breast cancer were also included (Appendix B).
HBM/BSE questionnaire. This instrument assessed BSE beliefs based on the HBM
model (see Appendix C). This measure was newly generated for this study based on
conventions in the literature for testing the HBM. It contained the HBM variables of
perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and cues to
action measured on separate subscales. This instrument is composed of 57 items, with the
number of items on each subscale ranging from seven to eleven. Subscales utilized a 7-point
Likert scale with end points labeled strongly agree and strongly disagree. For all subscales, a
mean across items was calculated and used in analyses.
The Perceived Severity subscale consists of ten items aimed to measure the perceived
personal threat if breast cancer occurred (e.g., “I would feel like less of a woman if I were
diagnosed with breast cancer”). This subscale exhibited good internal consistency in the
current study (α = .75 and .86 at pre- and post-test, respectively).
The Perceived Susceptibility subscale consists of nine items aimed to assess the
perceived probability of getting breast cancer (e.g., “My chances of getting breast cancer are
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 20
great”). This subscale exhibited good internal consistency in the current study (α = .88 and
.87 at pre- and post-test, respectively).
The Benefits subscale consisted of ten items aimed to measure the perceived benefits
relative to conducting regular BSEs (e.g., “BSE is a low cost method of detecting cancer
early”). This subscale exhibited very good internal consistency in the current study (α = .92
and .95 at pre- and post-test, respectively).
The Barriers subscale consisted of eleven items aimed to measure the perceived
barriers relative to conducting regular BSEs (e.g., “BSEs are time consuming”). This
subscale exhibited good internal consistency in the current study (α = .87 and .81 at pre- and
post-test, respectively).
The Self-Efficacy subscale consisted of ten items aimed to assess one’s confidence in
accurately performing a BSE (e.g., “I feel confident that I could accurately perform a BSE”).
This subscale exhibited very good internal consistency in the current study (α = .91 and .94 at
pre- and post-test, respectively).
The Cues to Action subscale consisted of seven items aimed to measure any
instruction or education that the individual has received (e.g., “I have spoken with my doctor
about BSE”). This subscale exhibited adequate internal consistency in the current study (α =
.74 and .77 at pre- and post-test, respectively).
BSE measure of intent. This is a five-question instrument designed to assess how
likely it is that the individual will engage in BSEs in the next six months (Appendix D). A
mean across items was calculated to yield a score with higher scores representing stronger
intentions to engage in BSEs. This subscale exhibited good internal consistency in the current
study (α = .83; scale was used at post-test only).
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 21
Procedure
Prior to participating, individuals were provided with an informed consent form
(Appendix E). Participants then completed an online screening measure to ensure that they
did not currently engage in regular and effective BSE behavior. This survey consisted of a
demographic questionnaire, as well as a measure assessing BSE beliefs based on the Health
Belief Model (HBM/BSE Questionnaire; Appendix C). Due to the personal nature of the
questions, participants were asked to complete all measures in this study alone in a private,
distraction-free environment. Those who denied engaging in regular BSE, and/or reported
conducting ineffective BSEs were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the
psychoeducation plus MI group (PE/MI group), or the no-treatment control group. Prior to
participating in this phase of the study, participants were provided with a second informed
consent form to read and sign (Appendix F). Following the intervention, participants
completed a post-test consisting of the HBM/BSE Questionnaire, and the BSE Measure of
Intent. To ensure treatment fidelity across all sessions, research assistants followed a detailed
procedure outline. A checklist of relevant information to be covered during each session was
used to confirm that all information was addressed in the intervention.
Motivational Interviewing clinicians. Two graduate-level researchers received
specific training in MI principles and skills by a licensed psychologist trained in MI.
Graduate-level researchers reviewed the principles of the style of MI, practiced delivering the
intervention to other graduate-level researchers, and practiced delivering the intervention to
undergraduate researchers prior to providing the intervention to subjects. Graduate
researchers received supervision by a licensed psychologist as needed throughout the course
of the study.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 22
Motivational Interviewing group (PE/MI group). Participants randomly assigned
to this group (n = 17) met in groups of one to four individuals and attended a two-part
session. One part of the session focused on providing PE regarding breast self-exams in a
group format and the remaining portion of the study consisted of an individual 15-20 minute
MI session. Of participants randomly assigned to the PE/MI group, some were randomly
assigned to undergo the MI session prior to (n = 7) the PE session, and some were randomly
assigned to undergo the MI session following the PE session (n = 10). Prior to participating,
individuals were provided with a second informed consent form to read and sign (Appendix
F).
During the PE portion of the intervention, a short video on proper BSE performance
was shown to the group. A trained undergraduate assistant then provided standardized
instruction in BSE using manufactured silicone breast models for 15-20 minutes. Participants
were encouraged to practice proper BSE with these models and ask questions about BSE.
Feedback about effective BSE was provided to participants by the trained undergraduate
assistants (See Appendix G for full description of components of the PE session).
The MI session began with a description of the rationale for the session, informing
participants that they would be discussing their thoughts and feelings regarding conducting
regular breast self-exams (see Appendix H for full description of components of the MI
session). Researchers clarified that the responsibility for change was upon the participant,
and there would be no intent to coerce any type of behavior change during the session. The
researcher encouraged the participant to discuss positive aspects of engaging in regular BSE
behavior, as well as the negative aspects of engaging in regular BSE behavior through the use
of the decisional balance worksheet (Appendix I). During the use of the decisional balance
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 23
worksheet, the researcher sought to highlight any ambivalence and discuss any concerns
about engaging in regular BSE behavior with the participant. The graduate clinicians
responded to questions and statements in an empathic fashion while using reflective listening
skills. Lastly, future plans regarding the participant’s BSE behavior were discussed, goals
were set, and means to reach those goals were discussed. In discussing future plans regarding
implementing BSEs into their current regimen, participants were encouraged to conduct
BSEs following the last day of their menstrual cycle.
Upon completion of the study, participants were provided with pamphlets discussing
the importance of early detection of breast cancer, stickers to place on their personal calendar
to serve as a monthly reminder to complete regular BSEs, as well as a shower placard to
remind them of the correct way to conduct BSEs. Participants were then instructed to
complete a post-test online within 24 hours of completing the intervention. The post-test
consisted of the HBM/BSE measure as well as a measure of intent to engage in BSE
behavior.
Control group. After completing the pre-test measures, participants in the no-
treatment control group (n = 16) were yoked to participants in the intervention group and
completed a post-test consisting of the HBM/BSE measure as well as a measure of intent to
engage in BSE behavior at a similar time point as their yoked participant. For a summary of
the schedule of when measures were completed by participants, see Appendix J.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
To determine the success of random assignment, an independent samples t-test was
conducted to compare the HBM constructs (i.e., severity, susceptibility, benefits, barriers,
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 24
self-efficacy, cues to action) and intentions to engage in BSE at Time 1. There was a
significant difference between the control group (M = 2.40, SD = .83) and the PE/MI group
(M = 3.06, SD = .91), t(31) = -2.18, p = .04 for susceptibility, indicating that those
participants in the PE/MI group perceived a greater personal susceptibility to breast cancer at
the beginning of the study. This difference was controlled for in the main analyses through
the use of including time 1 in the mixed model analysis of variance.
Evidence of differential levels of attrition across condition was examined by
comparing data at pre-test of those who completed the study versus those who were eligible
for, but did not complete, the intervention session (n = 117); no differences were found (all
ps > .05). Additionally, independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine any
differences between MI clinician and order of PE/MI intervention (i.e., MI session before or
after educational session). No statistically significant differences were found (all ps > .05).
Therefore, data were collapsed across MI clinician and order for the remainder of the
analyses.
Analyses to Test Directional Hypotheses
To test Hypothesis 1, a multiple regression was conducted in which BSE intentions
was regressed onto the HBM variables. Results indicated that, when taken together, the HBM
constructs accounted for significant variance, F(6, 18) = 3.07, p = .03, r2
= .51, in intentions
to conduct BSEs. However, no single predictor was significantly associated with intentions,
over and above the other predictors (ps ≥ .07).
To test Hypothesis 2, a series of mixed-model ANOVAs was conducted to assess
differences by groups across time for each of the variables of the HBM model (severity,
susceptibility, benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and cues to action). In each model, a
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 25
significant time by condition interaction would support the directional hypotheses. See Table
1 for means and standard deviations for each HBM construct by condition and time.
There was no significant interaction between condition and time on perceived
severity, F(1, 29) = .19, p =.67, ηp2
= .01. There was also no main effect for time, F(1, 29) =
.39, p = .54, ηp2
= .01 or condition, F(1, 29) = .05, p = .82.
There was not a significant interaction between condition and time on perceived
susceptibility, F(1, 30) = 2.63, p = .12, ηp2
= .08, and there was no evidence for a main effect
of condition, F(1, 30) = 2.34, p = .14. There was a significant main effect for time, F(1, 30) =
10.36, p = .003, ηp2
= .26, such that participants, across condition, exhibited an increased
perception of susceptibility to breast cancer at post-test compared to at pre-test.
There was not a significant interaction between condition and time on perceived
benefits, F(1, 28) = 1.63, p =.21, ηp2
= .06. The main effect of condition was not significant,
F(1, 28) = 2.07, p = .16. However, there was a significant main effect for time, F(1, 28) =
7.92, p = .01, ηp2
= .22, such that, across conditions, study participants tended to perceive
more benefits to BSE at post-test than at pre-test.
There was not a significant interaction between condition and time on perceived
barriers, F(1, 29) = 2.19, p =.15, ηp2
= .07. There was also no significant main effect for time,
F(1, 29) = 2.53, p = .12, ηp2
= .08, or condition, F(1, 29) = .28, p = .60.
There was a significant main effect of time on self-efficacy, F(1, 27) = 9.03, p = .006,
ηp2
= .25, and a main effect of condition, F(1, 27) = 5.10, p .03. These main effects were
qualified by a time by condition interaction, F(1, 27) = 7.31, p =.01, ηp2
= .21. Consistent
with the hypothesis, participants in the PE/MI condition exhibited an increase in self-efficacy
from pre- to post-test, whereas those in the control condition did not.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 26
There was a significant effect of time on cues to action, F(1, 30) = 38.38, p <.001, ηp2
= .56, and a significant effect of condition, F(1, 30) = 6.05, p = .02. These main effects were
again qualified by a significant interaction between condition and time on cues to action, F(1,
30) = 12.81, p = .001, ηp2
= .30. Specifically, and consistent with the hypothesis, while both
conditions exhibited an increase in cues to action from pre-test to post-test, the increase was
larger in the PE/MI group than in the control group.
Hypothesis 3, that post-test intentions would differ by group, was tested with an
independent samples t-test. The PE/MI group reported significantly higher intentions to
engage in BSEs (M = 5.53, SD = .80) than the control group (M = 4.11, SD = 1.20), t(30) =
-3.93, p < .001; according to Cohen (1988), this is a very large effect (d = 1.39).
Lastly, following the recommendations outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), a series
of multiple regressions was conducted to test whether the effects of condition on intentions
were mediated by the other HBM constructs (taken collectively; Hypothesis 4). Baron and
Kenny (1986) suggest several steps to demonstrate mediation. First, the mediator must be
shown to relate to the independent variable; second, the dependent variable must be
significantly related to the independent variable; and third, when the dependent variable is
regressed onto both the independent variable and the mediator, the effect of the independent
variable should be attenuated or eliminated.
The first step in the mediation analysis was supported, as intentions differed by
condition (see Hypothesis 3 above). The second step in the mediation analysis was partially
supported, as self-efficacy and cues to action differed by condition (see Hypothesis 2 above).
To complete the test of mediation, BSE intentions was regressed onto both condition and the
HBM variables. In this analysis, the effect of condition was attenuated as compared to the
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 27
simple effect of condition on intentions, but was still significant, t(17) = 2.16, p = .05. The
HBM constructs, taken together, partially (but did not completely) mediate the effect of
condition on intentions; this suggests that the effects of condition on intentions are partly
unaccounted for by perceptions of severity, susceptibility, benefits, barriers, self-efficacy,
and cues to action.
Discussion
The current study investigated whether combining MI and an HBM intervention
would promote intentions to engage in BSE behaviors compared to an assessment only
control condition. Overall, results indicated that participants in the PE/MI group reported
greater intentions to perform monthly BSEs at post-test compared to participants in the no-
treatment control group, suggesting that a brief PE/MI session may strengthen intentions to
engage in regular BSEs. The effect size for intentions to engage in BSEs was very large
despite the small sample size in this study, making it unlikely that this was due to Type I
error and providing further support that a PE plus MI intervention for BSE is a promising
strategy for promoting BSEs.
Several studies suggest that the HBM constructs of perceived severity, perceived
susceptibility, benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and cues to action tend to collectively account
for significant variance in intentions to engage in BSE (Champion, 1988, 1990; Luszczynska
& Schwarzer, 2003; Massey, 1986). This hypothesis was supported in the present
investigation. Although, contrary to predictions of the HBM that perceived severity,
perceived susceptibility, benefits, self-efficacy, and cues to action are positively associated
with intentions and perceived barriers are negatively associated with intentions, no specific
predictor was significantly associated with intentions, over and above the other predictors.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 28
Previous studies have shown the strongest predictor of BSE frequency to be perceived
barriers (Champion, 1988; Fung, 1998). This finding was not replicated in this study, as
participants in the PE/MI group did not significantly differ on levels of perceived barriers,
indicating that individuals in both groups reported similar levels of perceived barriers across
time and condition. Furthermore, previous interventions have led to increases in perceived
susceptibility and perceived benefits, yet this was not replicated in the present study, as
participants in the PE/MI group and no-treatment control group did not differ on these
variables. The current study’s small sample size may have contributed to the differences in
findings, as many of the previous studies had more robust samples. Also, much of the
previous research on BSE interventions has targeted samples of older women. Because older
women are at an objectively greater risk of developing breast cancer, interventions to
promote BSE might cause them to perceive more benefits of completing BSEs and they may
feel more susceptible to developing breast cancer, compared to younger women. Moreover,
in the current study, participants in the PE/MI group had higher levels of perceived
susceptibility at Time 1, potentially masking any positive effects of the intervention on this
construct. Non-significant findings are typically reported for perceived severity (Murray &
McMillan, 1993; Norman & Brain, 2005). Consistent with previous research, no differences
were found for perceived severity by group from Time 1 to Time 2.
Self-efficacy and cues to action were added more recently as components of the
HBM, and many studies have reported significant relationships between these factors and
BSE (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2003; Norman & Brain, 2005). This finding was replicated
in the present study, as participants in the PE/MI group reported greater self-efficacy and
awareness of BSE cues from pre- to post-test compared to those in the control group. This
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 29
may suggest that providing PE regarding proper BSEs through the use of silicone breast
models may increase young women’s confidence in performing this behavior. Also, one of
the four basic principles that underlies the style of MI, as described by Miller and Rollnick
(2002), is increasing client efficacy. This provides some evidence that through the use of MI,
participant’s confidence in performing BSE increased by engaging in client-centered
directive interviewing to implement behavior change.
Additionally, it is evident that this intervention may have increased participants’
awareness of existing cues, as these were discussed during the MI session and may have
primed participants to the cues in their regular environments. Also, the intervention may
have provided new cues to participants, as those in the PE/MI group were provided with
several items including a shower placard and stickers to place on their personal calendar to
serve as a monthly reminder to perform BSEs following the PE/MI session. Future research
would benefit from tracking the specific cues attended to by participants. It may be that,
unlike perceptions of barriers, benefits, severity, and susceptibility, which were targeted only
in the PE or MI parts of the intervention, self-efficacy and cues to action were targeted in
both the PE and MI portions of the intervention, hence the significant findings.
There were some constructs with a main effect of time, including perceived
susceptibility and perceived benefits. This finding may be attributed to testing effects, in that
simply responding to the measure at Time 1 may have changed individuals’ levels of
perceived susceptibility and perceived benefits. Particularly if individuals have not
considered the idea that they may develop breast cancer, or the benefits of conducting
monthly BSEs, simply responding to these items may have impacted their perceptions of
susceptibility and benefits. Recall, also, that participants differed in their perceived
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 30
susceptibility at Time 1. Therefore, the overall increase in perceived susceptibility over time
may have been due to regression to the mean among those in the control condition.
Previous research suggests that the HBM constructs, taken collectively, tend to be the
most proximal predictors of behavior, thus an intervention that targets each of these
constructs should affect intentions to engage in the behavior (Champion & Miller, 1992).
Results from this study indicated that the HBM constructs, taken together, partially mediated
the effects of condition on intentions suggesting that the effects of condition on intentions are
partly unaccounted for by perceptions of severity, susceptibility, benefits, barriers, self-
efficacy, and cues to action. Identification of these additional factors is an important area for
future research. Additional mediators would provide additional targets for future
interventions to increase BSE in this population.
Limitations and Implications
The results of this study should be interpreted with the following limitations
considered. First, the small sample size (n = 33) is a limitation in this study. The lack of
findings on several HBM constructs that are typically found in previous research including
perceptions of barriers, benefits, and susceptibility may be attributed to the small sample size.
Replication of this study with a more robust sample size is encouraged to determine the
effects of the intervention on these constructs. However, in spite of the small sample size,
individuals in the PE/MI group reported significantly greater levels of self-efficacy, cues to
action, and behavioral intentions from pre- to post-test than the control group, indicating that
even with little power, the intervention was effective at increasing these. Particularly notable
is the large effect size for intentions to engage in BSEs (d = 1.39).
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 31
The use of self-report data as a measure of intentions at post-test rather than using an
objective measure of behavior is also a limitation of this study. While the use of self-report is
the norm in the literature, a more objective measure would reduce the potential social
desirability effects that may impact the responses on the self-report measure. Researchers
attempted to mitigate social desirability concerns by requiring participants to complete all
measures online rather than in person. Also, because individuals were randomly assigned to
condition, it is expected that participants prone to respond in a more socially desirable way
will be equally distributed across conditions, thus minimizing these effects on the overall
findings of the study.
Additionally, by conducting this study with only college undergraduates at a
moderately sized university in a rural area, the generalizability of this study is an area of
concern. Expanding this research to test the effects of MI on BSE in other populations of
young women, including those in a more urban university setting, or in a population of young
women that are not currently seeking an undergraduate degree, is encouraged.
Furthermore, though previous research has demonstrated intentions to be associated
with future behavior, using intentions as the outcome variable is a limitation of this study.
Though the Theory of Planned Behavior posits behavioral intentions are the best predictor of
behavior and this has been demonstrated to be the case in a number of domains (e.g., Ajzen,
1991; Armitage, 2005), future research should consider using an objective measure of
behavior at post-test. Moreover, only measuring intentions at Time 2 is a limitation of the
present study and also measuring intentions at Time 1 to determine if the intervention
increased one’s intention to engage in BSE is suggested for future research. Additionally
because behavior was not objectively measured at a longer duration follow-up period, long-
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 32
term effects of the intervention on behavior are unknown. To improve the understanding of
the effects of an MI intervention on BSE behavior and to improve the understanding of the
long-term continuation of behavior, future research should utilize longitudinal methods
wherever possible.
Another limitation of this study is related to the different settings in which the study
was conducted. Because the no-treatment control group completed this study online only, and
did not have any in-person contact, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of the MI
intervention from the effects of attending an in-person intervention session of any kind.
Using an alternative intervention group (i.e., a diet intervention) as the control group, where
both groups would receive the intervention and require similar in-person contact, would be
one way future researchers can address this concern.
Lastly, it is unclear whether the effects of the intervention can be attributed to the PE
session, the MI session, or the combination of the two. Though a limitation of previous
research is that researchers have mostly focused on providing PE to individuals and have
failed to address the underlying cognitive issues that MI seeks to address, combining these
two interventions makes it difficult to determine where the benefits of the intervention lie.
Future research should consider testing the current intervention against more stringent
alternative treatments, such as a solely PE-based intervention, to determine if the addition of
MI enhances the positive effects of the intervention.
If the MI intervention techniques are shown to be effective, future research
investigating the mechanism and duration of the MI session is recommended. For instance,
research regarding the impact of MI session length in relation to outcomes (e.g., how brief
can a session be to still be effective?) is encouraged. Also, it would be advantageous to learn
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 33
the benefits of implementing MI as an effort to maintain BSE behavior change in routine
physician visits. Available evidence suggests that MI holds considerable promise as a
behavior change approach in public health and medical settings (Burke et al., 2003), and
because this MI session was brief, it is therefore amenable to implementation in a primary
care setting where time devoted to behavior change efforts is limited. Because of the quick
pace of public health settings and the lack of time for intensive training, variations of MI
have been utilized in these settings. AMIs, or interventions that incorporate non-MI
techniques while retaining MI principles, have often been adapted for use by non-specialists
such as nurses and primary physicians.
Additional research regarding what type of individual may benefit from MI or
specific personality characteristics that may forecast a positive or negative response to an MI
intervention would also be useful in terms of implementing this intervention. For example,
Need for Cognition, or the enjoyment of engaging in effortful cognitive activities, has been
found to play a role in the interpretation and utilization of health messages used in
interventions targeting BSE. In one study, individuals high in Need for Cognition who
presented with threatening breast cancer information reported more motivation to start
performing regular BSEs compared to individuals low in Need for Cognition (Ruiter,
Verplanken, De Cremer, & Kok, 2004). Future research should consider personality
characteristics such as NFC when developing an intervention, as tailoring the intervention to
an individual’s personality characteristics may be more beneficial than a general approach.
Conclusion
The current results offer encouraging initial results regarding the effectiveness of a
HBM-based intervention with an MI component as a method to increase intentions to engage
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 34
in monthly BSEs in a population of college-aged women. Unfortunately, there has been a
deficit in past research regarding interventions targeting young women that implement
components related to the cognitive factors underlying BSE non-compliance. Given the
importance of this factor in increasing BSE behavior, future research regarding the benefits
of this type of intervention is encouraged so that future health educators, physicians, and
nurses may employ an intervention such as this in practice. Interventions based on models
such as the HBM that have an MI component are relatively in cost, are low in time
commitment, and are relatively easily replicable. As such, they offer a promising avenue for
changing public health.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 35
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
American Cancer Society (1987). Cancer facts and figures-1987. Atlanta, GA: American
Cancer Society.
American Cancer Society (2009). Cancer facts and figures-2009-2010. Atlanta, GA:
American Cancer Society.
American Cancer Society (2010). Breast cancer overview. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer
Society.
Armitage, C. J. (2005). Can the theory of planned behavior predict the maintenance of
physical activity? Health Psychology, 24, 235-245. doi : 10.1037/0278-6133.24.3.235
Audrain, J., Rimer, B., Cella, D., Stefanek, M., Garber, J., Pennanen, M., … Lerman, C.
(1999). The impact of a brief coping skills intervention on adherence to breast self-
examination among first-degree relatives of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.
Psycho-Oncology, 8, 220-229.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Berg-Smith, S. M., Stevens, V. J., Brown, K. M., Van Horn, L., Gernhofer, N., Peters, E.,
... Smith K. (1999). A brief motivational intervention to improve dietary adherence in
adolescents. Health Education Research, 14, 399-410. doi: 10.1093/her/14.3.399
Budden, L. (1995). Young women’s breast self-examination knowledge and practice.
Journal of Community Health Nursing, 12, 23-32.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 36
Burke, B. L., Arkowitz, H., & Menchola, M. (2003). The efficacy of motivational
interviewing: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology. 71, 843-861. doi : 10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.843
Calnan, M., & Rutter, D. R. (1986). Do health beliefs predict health behaviour? An analysis
of breast self-examination. Social Science and Medicine, 22, 673–678.
Champion, V. L. (1987). The relationship of breast self-examination to health belief model
variables. Research in Nursing and Health, 10, 375–382.
Champion, V. L. (1988). Attitudinal variables related to intention, frequency and proficiency
of breast self-examination in women 35 and over. Research in Nursing and Health,
11, 283–291.
Champion, V. L. (1990). Breast self-examination in women 35 and older: A prospective
study. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13, 523–538.
Champion, V. L., & Miller, T. K. (1992). Variables related to breast self-examination.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 81-96.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erblich, J., Bovbjerg, D. H., & Valdimarsdottir, H. B. (2000). Psychological distress, health
beliefs, and frequency of breast self-examination. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
23, 277-292.
Fletcher, S. W., O'Malley, M. S., Earp, J. L., Morgan, T. M., Lin, S., & Degnan, D. (1990).
How best to teach women breast self-examination: A randomized controlled trial.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 112, 772-779.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 37
Fry, R. B., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (2006). Effects of a psychosocial intervention on breast self-
examination attitudes and behaviors. Health Education Research, 21, 287-295. doi:
10.1093/her/cyh066
Fung, S. Y. (1998). Factors associated with breast self-examination behavior among Chinese
women in Hong Kong. Patient Education and Counseling, 33, 233–243.
George, S. A. (2000). Barriers to breast cancer screening: An integrative review. Health Care
for Women International, 21, 53-65.
Hill, D., White, V., Jolley, D., & Mapperson, K. (1998). Self-examination of the breast: Is it
beneficial? Meta-analysis of studies investigating breast self-examination and extent
of disease in patients with breast cancer. British Medical Journal, 297, 271–275.
Janz, N. K., Becker, M. H., Anderson, L. A., & Marcoux, B. C. (1989). Interventions to
enhance breast self-examination practice: A review. Public Health Review, 90, 89-
163.
Kaplan, K. M., Weinberg, G. B., Small, A., & Herndon, J. L. (1991). Breast cancer screening
among relatives of women with breast cancer. American Journal of Public Health,
81, 1174-1179.
Kenney, E., Hovell, M., Newborn, C., & Elder, J. (1989). Breast self-examination among
college women: Predictors for cancer control. American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 5, 27-33.
Lannin, D. R., & Ponn, T. (2005). What should we teach women about breast self-
examination today? Journal of Women’s Health, 14, 529-530.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 38
Lindberg, N. M., Stevens, V. J., Smith, K. S., Glasgow, R. E., & Toobert, D. J. (2009). A
brief intervention designed to increase breast cancer self-screening. American Journal
of Health Promotion, 23, 320-325.
Lundahl, B. W., Kunz, C., Brownell, C., Tollefson, D., & Burke, B. L. (2010). A meta-
analysis of motivational interviewing: Twenty-five years of empirical studies.
Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 137-160. doi : 10.1177/1049731509347850
Luszczynska, A. (2004). Change in breast self-examination behavior: Effects of intervention
on enhancing self-efficacy. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11, 95-
103.
Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2003). Planning and self-efficacy in the adoption and
maintenance of breast self-examination: A longitudinal study on self-regulatory
cognitions. Psychology and Health, 18, 93–108.
Mamon, J. A., & Zapka, J. G. (1985). Improving frequency and proficiency of breast self-
examination: Effectiveness of an educational program. American Journal of Public
Health, 75, 618-624.
Massey, V. (1986). Perceived susceptibility to breast cancer and practice of breast self-
examination. Nursing Research, 35, 183–185.
Millar, M. G. (1997). The effects of emotion on breast self-examination: Another look at the
health belief model. Social Behavior and Personality, 25, 223-232.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for
change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 39
Murray, M., & McMillan, C. (1993). Health beliefs, locus of control, emotional control and
women’s cancer screening behaviour. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 87–
100.
Newman, C. F. (1994). Understanding client resistance: Methods for enhancing motivation to
change. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 1, 47-69.
Norman, P., & Brain, K. (2005). An application of an extended health belief model to the
prediction of breast self-examination among women with a family history of breast
cancer. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 1-16. doi:
10.1348/135910704X24752
Reniscow, K., Jackson, A., Wang, T., Dudley, W., & Baranowski, T. (2001). A motivational
interviewing intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intake through black
churches: Results of the Eat for Life trial. American Journal of Public Health, 91,
1686-1693.
Ruiter, R. A. C., Verplanken, B., De Cremer, D., & Kok, G. (2004). Danger and fear
control in response to fear appeals: The role of need for cognition. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 26, 13-24.
Sheeran, P., & Abraham, C. (1996). The health belief model. In M. Conner & P. Norman
(Eds.), Predicting health behavior (pp. 23–61). Buckingham, England: Open
University Press.
Smith, D. E., Heckemeyer, C. M., Kratt, P. P., & Mason, D. A. (1997). Motivational
interviewing to improve adherence to a behavioral weight-control program for older
obese women with NIDDM: A pilot study. Diabetes Care, 20, 53-54.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 40
Thomas, D. B., Gao, D. L., Ray, R. M., Wang, W. W., Allison, C. J., Chen, F. L.,... Self, S.
G. (2002). Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: Final results.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94, 1445-1457.
Umeh, K., & Rogan-Gibson, J. (2001). Perceptions of threat, benefits, and barriers in breast
self-examination amongst young asymptomatic women. British Journal of Health
Psychology, 6, 361– 372.
Woollard, J., Beilin, L., Lord, T., Puddey, I., MacAdam, D., & Rouse, I. (1995). A controlled
trial of nurse counselling on lifestyle change for hypertensives treated in general
practice: Preliminary results. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and
Physiology, 22, 466-468.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 41
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for HBM constructs by condition and time.
n M SD
Severity
Time 1: Control
MI
Time 2: Control
MI
14
17
14
17
4.13
4.26
4.26
4.28
.79
.98
.76
1.07
Susceptibility
Time 1: Control
MI
Time 2: Control
MI
16
16
16
16
2.40
3.07
3.05
3.29
.83
.94
.88
1.03
Benefits
Time 1: Control
MI
Time 2: Control
MI
14
16
14
16
5.17
5.46
5.35
5.93
.92
.86
.97
.78
Barriers
Time 1: Control
MI
Time 2: Control
MI
16
15
16
15
3.47
3.49
3.48
3.81
1.08
1.00
1.01
.61
Self-Efficacy
Time 1: Control
MI
Time 2: Control
MI
16
13
16
13
4.08
4.62
4.12
5.40
1.39
.98
1.25
.76
Cues to Action
Time 1: Control
MI
Time 2: Control
MI
16
16
16
16
2.61
2.94
2.91
4.05
.96
.63
1.21
.69
BSE Intentions
Time 2: Control
MI
16
16
4.11
5.53
1.20
.80
Note. HBM = Health Belief Model; MI =Motivational Interviewing; BSE = breast self-
examination.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 42
Appendix A
ATTN: Kelsey Toomey Psychology CAMPUS MAIL From: Dr. Timothy Ludwig, Institutional Review Board Date: 2/07/2011 RE: Notice of IRB Approval by Expedited Review (under 45 CFR 46.110) Study #: 11-0132 Study Title: Breast Self-Examination Among College-Aged Females: An Intervention Study Submission Type: Modification Expedited Category: (7) Research on Group Characteristics or Behavior, or Surveys, Interviews, etc. Approval Date: 2/07/2011 Expiration Date of Approval: 12/06/2011 This submission has been approved by the Institutional Review Board for the period indicated. It has been determined that the risk involved in this modification is no more than minimal. Investigator’s Responsibilities: Federal regulations require that all research be reviewed at least annually. It is the Principal Investigator’s responsibility to submit for renewal and obtain approval before the expiration date. You may not continue any research activity beyond the expiration date without IRB approval. Failure to receive approval for continuation before the expiration date will result in automatic termination of the approval for this study on the expiration date. You are required to obtain IRB approval for any changes to any aspect of this study before they can be implemented. Should any adverse event or unanticipated problem involving risks to subjects occur it must be reported immediately to the IRB.
disagree disagree disagree agree nor agree agree agree
disagree
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 55
Appendix D
BSE Intentions Questionnaire
1. How likely are you to conduct a breast self-examination in the next month?
Not at Neither Likely Very
all Likely nor Unlikely Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. How likely are you to complete a breast self-examination using the three-step method?
Not at Neither Likely Very
all Likely nor Unlikely Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. How likely are you to complete breast self-examinations once a month for the next six
months?
Not at Neither Likely Very
all Likely nor Unlikely Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. How likely are you to conduct a breast self-examination the day after the last day of your
next menstrual cycle?
Not at Neither Likely Very
all Likely nor Unlikely Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. How likely are you to forget to conduct a breast self-examination in the next month?
Not at Neither Likely Very
all Likely nor Unlikely Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 56
Appendix E
Phase I Consent Form
Consent to Participate in Research
Information to Consider About this Research
Breast Self-Examination Behaviors Among College-Aged Females
Principal Investigator: Kelsey Toomey Department: Psychology Contact Information: Courtney Rocheleau, Ph.D.
308 Smith Wright Hall Boone, NC 28608 (828) 262-2732
What is the purpose of this research?
You are being invited to take part in a research study about breast self-examination behaviors in college aged-women. If you take part in this study, you will be one of about 200 people to do so. By doing this study we hope to learn more about current health behaviors in young women, such as breast self-examination. What will I be asked to do? The research procedures will be conducted at Appalachian State University. You will be asked to complete several measures online. These measures seek to assess health behaviors, and mental health. You may be asked to attend up to two additional sessions based on the results of the questionnaires. If you are invited and agree to participate in these additional research sessions, you will be provided with additional information about those sessions at that time. Most participants will be able to complete this study in approximately 30 minutes. Participants who complete this study are eligible to receive one Experiential Learning Credit (ELC) as compensation for their time. You should not volunteer for this study if you are not a female and if you are under 18 years of age. What are possible harms or discomforts that I might experience during the research? To the best of our knowledge, the risk of harm for participating in this research study is no more than you would experience in everyday life. We know about the following risks or discomforts that you may experience if you choose to volunteer for this study:
You may find some of the questions we ask (or some procedures we ask you to do) to be upsetting or stressful. If so, we can tell you about some people who may be able to help you with these feelings.
Some of the answers you provide may be very personal or indicate behavior which you do not want made public. Though online communication is not perfectly secure, the
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 57
research team will do its best to ensure that the information you provide will be kept private and confidential.
In addition to the risks listed above, you may experience a risk or negative effect that we cannot predict. During the course of this research, if we find out any new reason why you may no longer wish to participate, we will provide you with that information. What are the possible benefits of this research? There may be no personal benefit from your participation but the information gained by doing this research may help others in the future. This study should help us learn more about preventative measures taken by college-aged females. Will I be paid for taking part in the research? You will receive one Experiential Learning Credit (ELC) for completing this on-line survey. If you qualify for additional studies based upon your responses to this survey, you will have the opportunity to earn additional ELCs in those studies. How will you keep my private information confidential? Your information will be combined with information from other people taking part in the study. When we write up the study to share it with other researchers, we will write about the combined information. You will not be individually identified in any published or presented materials. We will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on the research team from knowing what information you gave us. Your name will be kept separate from the information you provide, and you will be assigned a number in place of your email address during data entry to ensure that your identity will not be connected to your responses. Data will be kept indefinitely, and information you provide may be stripped of identifiers and used in future research without anyone knowing it is information that you have provided. Who can I contact if I have questions? The people conducting this study will be available to answer any questions concerning this research, now or in the future. You may contact the Principal Investigator, Kelsey Toomey, at 704-307-0272 or [email protected] or Dr. Rocheleau at 828-262-2732 or [email protected]. If you have questions about your rights as someone taking part in research, contact the Appalachian Institutional Review Board Administrator at 828-262-2130 (days), through email at [email protected] or at Appalachian State University, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, IRB Administrator, Boone, NC 28608. Do I have to participate? What else should I know?
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 58
In order to receive your ELC, you will need to click on a link on the last page of the on-line survey. This will take you to another survey in which you’ll be asked to provide your full name and Banner ID number. These identifying data will be kept confidential. If you do not complete this information on the second survey, you will not receive your ELC. Participating in this study is completely voluntary. Even if you decide to participate now, you may change your mind and stop at any time. You may choose not to answer any survey question for any reason. If you decide to withdraw your consent, you may still earn the ELC associated with the study. You should simply click through the survey by using the “Next” button at the end of each page. At the end of the survey, follow the instructions for getting your credit. There will be no penalty and no loss of benefits or rights if you decide at any time to stop participating in the study. This research project has been approved, as required, by the Institutional Review Board of Appalachian State University This study was approved on [approval pending]. This approval will expire on [approval pending] unless the IRB renews the approval of this research. I have decided I want to take part in this research. What should I do now? By checking on the boxes below, you are stating that you agree with the following information:
I have read (or had read to me) all of the above information.
I have had an opportunity to ask questions about things in this research I did not
understand and have received satisfactory answers.
I understand that I can stop taking part in this study at any time.
I understand I am not giving up any of my rights.
I agree not to discuss this study with any other students who may serve as
participants, in order to maintain the integrity of the research study.
I am 18 years of age or older.
Participants will check a box indicating either that (1) they have read and understood this information and consent to the use of their data in this study, or (2) they decline consent to use their data in this study, and are completing the study only to receive the Experiential Learning Credit. If participants decline consent, their data record will be deleted, but they will still receive the ELC compensation.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 59
Appendix F
Phase II Consent Form
Consent to Participate in Research
Information to Consider About this Research
Breast Self-Examination Behaviors Among College-Aged Females
Principal Investigator: Kelsey Toomey Department: Psychology Contact Information: Courtney Rocheleau, Ph.D.
308 Smith Wright Hall Boone, NC 28608 (828) 262-2732
What is the purpose of this research?
You are being invited to take part in a research study about breast self-examination behaviors in college aged-women. If you take part in this study, you will be one of about 200 people to do so. By doing this study we hope to learn more about current health behaviors in young women, such as breast self-examination. What will I be asked to do? The research procedures will be conducted at Appalachian State University and at The Institute for Health and Human Services. You will be asked to complete several measures online. These measures seek to assess health behaviors, and mental health. You may be asked to come to the lab to discuss breast health behaviors. In this study there are different groups, each requiring different amounts of time. This study may take between one and two hours. Participants who complete this study are eligible to receive between two and four Experiential Learning Credit (ELC) as compensation for their time. You should not volunteer for this study if you are not a female and if you are under 18 years of age. What are possible harms or discomforts that I might experience during the research? To the best of our knowledge, the risk of harm for participating in this research study is no more than you would experience in everyday life. We know about the following risks or discomforts that you may experience if you choose to volunteer for this study:
You may find some of the questions we ask (or some procedures we ask you to do) to be upsetting or stressful. If so, we can tell you about some people who may be able to help you with these feelings.
Some of the answers you provide may be very personal or indicate behavior, which you do not want made public. Though online communication is not perfectly secure, the research team will do its best to ensure that the information you provide will be kept private and confidential.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 60
In addition to the risks listed above, you may experience a risk or negative effect that we cannot predict. During the course of this research, if we find out any new reason why you may no longer wish to participate, we will provide you with that information. What are the possible benefits of this research? There may be no personal benefit from your participation but the information gained by doing this research may help others in the future. This study should help us learn more about preventative measures taken by college-aged females. Will I be paid for taking part in the research? You will receive between two and four Experiential Learning Credits (ELCs) for completing this research study. You will need to take part in all components of the study to receive full credit for this study. How will you keep my private information confidential? Your information will be combined with information from other people taking part in the study. When we write up the study to share it with other researchers, we will write about the combined information. You will not be individually identified in any published or presented materials. We will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on the research team from knowing that you gave us information or what that information is. Your name will be kept separate from the information you provide, and you will be assigned a number in place of your email address during data entry to ensure that your identity will not be connected to your responses. Data will be kept indefinitely, and information you provide may be stripped of identifiers and used in future research without anyone knowing it is information that you have provided. Who can I contact if I have questions? The people conducting this study will be available to answer any questions concerning this research, now or in the future. You may contact the Principal Investigator, Kelsey Toomey, at 704-307-0272 or [email protected] or Dr. Rocheleau at 828-262-2732 or [email protected]. If you have questions about your rights as someone taking part in research, contact the Appalachian Institutional Review Board Administrator at 828-262-2130 (days), through email at [email protected] or at Appalachian State University, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, IRB Administrator, Boone, NC 28608. Do I have to participate? What else should I know? Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. If you choose not to volunteer, there will be no penalty and you will not lose any benefits or rights you would normally have. If you decide to take part in the study you still have the right to decide at any time that you
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 61
no longer want to continue. There will be no penalty and no loss of benefits or rights if you decide at any time to stop participating in the study. This research project has been approved, as required, by the Institutional Review Board of Appalachian State University This study was approved on [approval pending]. This approval will expire on [approval pending] unless the IRB renews the approval of this research. I have decided I want to take part in this research. What should I do now? The person obtaining informed consent will ask you to read the following and if you agree, you should indicate your agreement:
I have read (or had read to me) all of the above information.
I have had an opportunity to ask questions about things in this research I did not
understand and have received satisfactory answers.
I understand that I can stop taking part in this study at any time.
I understand I am not giving up any of my rights.
I agree not to discuss this study with any other students who may serve as
participants, in order to maintain the integrity of the research study.
Psychoeducation Session Outline 1. _____ Set up video in classroom prior to participants arrival:
Breast Self-Awareness (BSA) Interactive Tool on CD-ROM
2. _____ As participants arrive, give Informed Consent to each participant Read: “You are being invited to take part in a research study about breast self-examination behaviors in college aged-women. If you take part in this study, you will be one of about 100 people to do so. By doing this study we hope to learn more about current health behaviors in young women, such as breast self-examination. Please read over this form, and sign it if you agree to participate in this research study.” 3. _____ Begin video (10 minutes) Read: “This video discusses breast health, breast cancer and provides step by step instruction for proper breast self examination behavior.” 4. _____ Researcher provides hands on instruction using breast models (15
minutes) Make sure that each participant is instructed and conducting proper BSE behavior. Read: “We are now going to practice breast self-examination on silicone breast models. We have three different size breasts. It is encouraged that you choose the breast that you think is closest to your breast size. Use the finger pads of the three middle fingers on your hand to feel for lumps. Use overlapping dime-sized circular motions of the finger pads to feel the breast tissue. Use three different levels of pressure to feel all of the breast tissue. Light pressure is needed to feel the tissue closest to the skin; medium pressure to feel a little deeper; and firm pressure to feel the tissue closest to the chest and ribs. Use each pressure level to feel the breast tissue before moving on to the next spot. When conducting the exam, you may examine the breast in a vertical pattern, if this feels most comfortable, you would move the fingers in an up-and-down pattern from the collarbone to the ribs, continuing the up-and-down pattern across the breast to the middle of the chest bone. Or, you may conduct the exam in a circular pattern, where you start at the top of the breast, and circle in toward the nipple, using small circular motions to examine your entire breast. Choose what feels most comfortable for you. There are several lumps of different sizes in different locations of these breasts. See if you can find where they are all located.” 5. _____ Encourage participants to practice one at a time with the breast models
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 63
_____Provide sanitizer to participants prior to touching the breast models! 6. _____ Ask the participants if they have any questions about the procedure to
complete breast self-examinations, or the importance of conducting breast self-exams.
Suggest performing BSEs in the shower, as opposed to lying down, as shown in the video
7. _____ Read: “To receive full credit for this study, as noted in the Informed
Consent, you must follow the instructions on the slip provided and complete the follow-up portion of this study. A note card will be provided to you with instructions to complete this portion of the study. On this card is a link to the survey, your participant number, and directions to email the researcher when you are finished with the survey. This survey must be completed within the next 24 hours for you to receive full credit.”
8. _____ Thank participants for completion of the study and distribute BSE Cards
and Young Women Taking Care Booklet to each participant. Read: “Thank you for your time and cooperation, we will be distributing materials regarding breast self-examination that you may find helpful. These materials include stickers to place on your personal calendar to serve as a reminder to complete breast self-exams once a month, a shower placard describing proper breast self-exams, and a booklet on breast cancer in young women.”
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 64
Appendix H
Motivational Interviewing Session Outline
1. ____If not from PE group—Informed Consent. READ: “You are being invited to take part in a research study about breast self-examination behaviors in college aged-women. If you take part in this study, you will be one of about 100 people to do so. By doing this study we hope to learn more about current health behaviors in young women, such as breast self-examination. Please read over this form, and sign it if you agree to participate in this research study.”
2. ____ Rationale (2 minutes) “We’re here to discuss your thoughts and feelings about breast self-examinations. It is not my intent to persuade you in anyway today. “
“Do you currently perform breast self-exams?”
3. ____Decisional Balance (about 8 minutes) Worksheet: “In thinking about breast self-exams, let’s take a look at this worksheet…” Inform participant that they can keep the worksheet if they would like Highlight ambivalence (reflect)
4. ____Future plans regarding the participant’s BSE behavior (5 minutes) Have the participant summarize: “Looking at this worksheet, tell me what you see here”
Questions about future plans: 1. On a scale from 1-10, with 1 being not important at all, and
10 being extremely important, how important is it for you to engage in regular BSE behavior?
ANSWER—
2. Using that same scale, how confident are you that you could engage in regular BSE behavior?
ANSWER—
3. What would it take for you to move up on your confidence rating?
ANSWER—
Develop a plan (to change or not)—set goals, discuss how to reach goals, etc.
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 65
Appendix I
When we think about making changes, most of us don’t really consider all “sides” in a complete way. Instead, we often do what we think we “should” do, avoid doing things we don’t feel like doing, or just feel confused or overwhelmed and give up and thinking about it all. Thinking through the pros and cons of both changing and not making a change is one way to help us make sure we have fully considered a possible change. Below, write the reasons that you can think of in each of the boxes.
Benefits/Pros Costs/Cons
Making a
change
Not
Changing
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 66
Appendix J
Schedule of Measures Completed
Measures
Pre-Test:
All Participants
Demographic Questionnaire
HBM/BSE Questionnaire
Post-Test:
Control Group; MI Group
Demographic Questionnaire
HBM/BSE Questionnaire
BSE Measure of Intent
BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION 67
Vita
Kelsey J. Toomey graduated from Appalachian State University (ASU) with a
Bachelor of Science Degree in Psychology, Summa Cum Laude, in May of 2009. During her
final year of her undergraduate studies, Ms. Toomey became involved as an undergraduate
intern at the ASU Psychology Clinic. This experience, as well as her interest in psychological
research, inspired her to enroll in post-graduate studies in psychology. In the fall of 2009,
Ms. Toomey began working towards a Master of Arts degree in Clinical Health Psychology
at ASU. In addition to the two years of coursework required by her program, she had the
opportunity to complete a research assistantship with a faculty member, work as the Clinic
Coordinator at the ASU Psychology Clinic, and engage in practicum experiences at Cannon
Memorial Hospital and at the ASU Psychology Clinic. Ms. Toomey completed her internship
at Mélange Health Solutions in Charlotte, North Carolina after completing her coursework.
She graduated with her Master’s degree from ASU in the fall of 2011. In January 2012, Ms.
Toomey will commence work towards obtaining licensure to practice as a clinical
psychologist in Charlotte, North Carolina. Ms. Toomey was a student member of the
Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, and the American Psychological Association.